Re: Editing Marks - Please Help!!!

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>]

Janice Gelb wrote:

> I didn't realize it was a choice. I certainly expand on what I mean 
by a mark if it needs more explanation than just a delete sign or 
something, but I'm still a bit
confused on how you mark up text without some sort of marks system. And 
if you're using one, why the standard one would be any more confusing 
than a made-up one.

In extreme cases, I've found it necessary to give explanations for every 
error, and, instead of using any system of marks, to spell out 
"parallelism" or "lack of agreement." Again, let me stress that this 
isn't an ideal way to work. In fact, it's very cumbersome. But, at 
times, it's the only way I've found to be reasonably sure that the 
editing wasn't ignored.

> |Also, I've been using the same marks for over 20 years -- I've  
|never had a writer feel that they got in the way or |were difficult to 
understand.

Our experiences do seem to be polar opposites, don't they? Maybe you 
edit a more knowledgable group of people than I do.


|> Even if they're not, aren't most of them relatively self-explanatory? 
Where are people getting confused?

They probably only seem self-explanatory because you're used to them and 
have been using them for a long time. However, if you step back and 
imagine that you're seeing them for the first time, I think you'll find 
that they're no more self-explanatory than the alphabet.